memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks
Abbreviation LD makes more sense than LOW, since we already have at least one two letter abbreviated series, depending on how you feel about . While it would be nice if this was THE Lower Decks so we could get a three letter abbreviation, to say nothing of avoiding confusion with the on the nose reference , we don't need to force one by ignoring the second word after the colon. VOY, ENT, and DIS are all for a single word disqualifier, while the we use the series' "initials" if it's more than one word. - 05:56, October 26, 2018 (UTC) :What about LWD? Just a thought. It's three letters. :--Noah Tall (talk) 13:34, October 27, 2018 (UTC) ::After Trek is background material though. It may be preferable to have 3-letter abbreviations for all narrative series (this includes Short Treks, I'm not a fan of using "ST" since that usually means something different here) for consistency. -- UncertainError (talk) 18:42, October 27, 2018 (UTC) LDS makes more sense than LWD, and it's another fun reference! Seriously though, the point of these is to be consistently recognizable, which is why the internal logic of how we make aberrations has to be consistent as well. TOS, TAS, TNG, & DS9/DSN all worked because the bit after the colon was/could be three words. That's why it's TOS & TAS and not O/OS & A/AS for Star Trek: Original/''Star Trek: Original Series'' and Star Trek: Animated/''Star Trek: Animated Series''. VOY/VGR matched the three letter abbreviations because there was a simple, if not agreed upon, way to do that. ENT & DIS/DSC followed suit. If we really want to keep the three letter abrivations for these, then the best way really is to use STS and LDS for S'hort '''T'rek'''s and L'ower '''D'eck'''s. Using the last letter to get to three at least makes sense when looking at the words, and doesn't conflict with other abbreviation systems I've seen used. That said, I don't have a problem with 2 letter abbreviations, as ST isn't used to mean anything else on MA, unlike the message boards, and the titles just naturally abbreviate that way. - 19:42, October 27, 2018 (UTC) :::I don't have a problem with it being a two-letter one, I just went with LOW because I didn't want to conflict/confuse with the industry standard abbreviation for LaserDisc. But if others are happy to override that... -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:02, October 27, 2018 (UTC) :But this site isn't divorced from the fan community. Who here can honestly claim that when they see "ST" in an article that their first thought isn't "Star Trek"? Just seems unnecessarily irksome to me. Anyway, my vote for the abbreviations is "LOW" for Lower Decks and "SHO" for Short Treks. I think they're the most evocative options for the titles. -- UncertainError (talk) 20:30, October 27, 2018 (UTC) ::::: This is all not a suggestion, but just 'why' stuff.... Since both Short Treks and After Trek are little more than an extension of Discovery, as opposed to a stuff not about Discovery, is it too much out of line to suggest DAT and DST? Also, I'm asking this purely out of the fact that I am completely avoiding news about Discovery, but why isn't Short Treks part of the Discovery Season 1 or Season 1.5 catalogue? It seems odd to have two series based on the same characters. --Alan (talk) 01:57, October 28, 2018 (UTC) I don't think ST and AT are going to be limited to DIS only, just that it's the only show fully in production right now. I expect they will cover the other "full" series once they are up and running. I can also say I don't first think of Star Trek when I see ST, though the franchise as a whole would be well before I thought of TOS in that regard. As for LaserDisc, we are a Star Trek site first, so the needs of a show gets precedent over a "long" dead video format. That said, I'm absolutely opposed to LOW and SHO in much the same way I think everyone would be to NEX and DEE for TNG and DS9. They may be evocative, but definitely not in a "good" way. - 06:36, October 28, 2018 (UTC)